New Light on Šimaški and Its Rulers (2007)

New Light on Simaski and Its Rulers*

by Piotr Steinkeller - Harvard University

An examination of the data pertaining to the Simaskian Yabrat (Ebarat) reveals that
this Iranian ruler controlled, during the later phase of the Ur III period, a powerful state
in central Iran. It appears that Yabrat's influence extended to the neighboring state of
AnSan, which may even have been his political dependency. A close and dependent ally of
the House of Ur until the reign of Ibbi-Suen, Yabrat subsequently became a major threat
to Babylonia. The article seeks to reconstruct the history of the interactions between Yab-
rat and the Ur III state, and to provide an improved understanding of Simaski as a politi-
cal and geographic phenomenon. The question of the historicity of the so-called "SimaS-
kian King List" is also considered.

The understanding of the role of Simaski in the history of the Ur III
period was considerably advanced by the realization that the logogram
lu.suCa) 151 , which serves as a topographic and ethnic designation in Ur
III and early Old Babylonian sources, is a writing of Simaski's name.
Presented as a hypothesis by this author, 1 this reading was subsequently
confirmed by M. Civil, based on the replacement of lu.su^ by a syllabic
writing Si-ma-as-ki in an Emar manuscript of the literary letter "Siniddi-
nam to Utu." 2

* I take this opportunity to offer my cordial thanks to P. Michalowski, W. Sallaberger,
and Christopher Woods, who read the preliminary version of this article. All three of
them offered various suggestions and corrections, and supplied additional textual ref-
erences. While the final product unquestionably profited from their input, they are in
no way responsible for the views expressed here. That burden rests with me alone.
Abbreviations used are those of the Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago and/or the Sumerian Dictionary of the University Museum of
the University of Pennsylvania, with the following additions:
Hilgert Drehem 1 M. Hilgert, Drehem Administrative Documents from the Reign of

Sulgi. Oriental Institute Publications 115 (Chicago 1998)
Hilgert Drehem 2 M. Hilgert, Drehem Administrative Documents from the Reign of

Amar-Suena. Oriental Institute Publications 121 (Chicago 2003)
Konig EKI F. W Konig, Die elamischen Konigsinschriften. Archiv fur Orient-

forschung Beiheft 16 (1965)
i On the Identity of the Toponym LU.SU(A), JAOS 108 (1988) 197-202; More on

LU.SU(A) = Simaski, NABU 1990/7.
2 Sin-iddinam in Emar and SUA = SimaSki, NABU 1996/41.

Zeitschr. f. Assyriologie Bd. 97, S. 215-232 DOI 1515/ZA.2007.011

© Walter de Gruyter 2007
ISSN 0084-5299

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50

Download Date | 10/7/12 12:12 AM

216 Piotr Steinkeller

While already proven beyond any reasonable doubt, 3 the reading Si-
maski of lu.suOa) 1 " is additionally demonstrated by a recently published
Ur III tablet, which identifies Kirname as a LU.su.A ki . 4 This agrees with
the testimony of the Simaskian king list (henceforth referred to as SKL), 5
according to which Kirname was a ruler of Simaski. For Kirname, see in
detail below.

The most extensive sources of information on the geographical location
of Simaski are the historical inscriptions of Su-Suen, which describe his
campaign against Zabsali and other Simaskian lands, 6 during the seventh
or sixth year of his reign. 7 These sources mention some sixteen Simas-
kian principalities, specifically identifying Zabsali, Sigris, Yabulmat, Alu-
midatum, Karta, and Satilu as the most prominent ones. 8 Among these,

3 Remarkably, in spite of all this evidence, as late as 2002 M.-J. Steve/F. Vallat/H. Gasche,
art. Suse, Supplement au dictionaire de la bible, Fascicule 73 (Paris 2002) 432-40, ob-
stinately stood by Vallat's idea that LU.su(.A) ki means "a man of Susa" or the region of
Susiana. Needless to say, this position has no scholarly merit whatsoever.

4 Ba-'y?-[...] ... Ba-a[b-du-sa] lu-kin-gi 4 -a Id-[ab]-ra-at LU.su.A^-me ... Su-tu-un-gu
lu-kin-gi 4 -a Ki-ir-na-mi LU.su.A ki (Sigrist Ontario 149:1-5). That Kirname was a
LU.su(.A) ki was anticipated by this author in JAOS 108, 200.

5 RA 28 (1931) 2. This source, which stems from Susa and dates to Old Babylonian
times, has most recently been edited by I. J. Gelb/B. Kienast, Die altakkadischen
Konigsinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v.Chr. FAOS 7 (Stuttgart 1990) 317-18. A
photograph of the obverse of this tablet was published by T. Potts, Mesopotamia and
the East: An Archaeological and Historical Study of Foreign Relations 3400-2000 BC
(Oxford 1994) 31 fig. 4. The names and sequence of the Simaskian rulers listed in it
(lines 16-26) are as follows:

1) d Gi-ir-na-am-me 7) I-da-at-tii

2) Ta-zi-it-ta 8) Tan-ru-hu-at-te-er

3) E-ba-ar-ti 9) E-[ba]-ar-ti

4) Ta-zi-it-ta 10) I-da-at-tu

5) Lu-x-x-akV -lu-uh-ha-an 11) I-da-at-tu-na-pi-ir

6) Ki-in-da-at-t[u] 12) I-da-at-tu-te-em-ti

12 lugal.mes Si-mas-kiUu

6 Frayne, RIME 3/2, 301-06 Su-Sin 3, 308-12 Su-Sin 5.

7 mu d Su- d Suen ... ma- da Za-ab-sa-li ki mu-hul, "year Su-Suen ... destroyed the land
of Zabsali" (year su-Suen 7).

8 ' ma 1 -ta-at Si-mas-ki-im ki [u]-ha-li-iq ma-at Za-ab-sa-li ki ma-at Si-ig(-ri) -is^ ma-at Ia-
bu-ul-ma-at ki ma-at A-lu-mi-da-tim ki ma-at Ga-ar-ta ki ma-at Sa-ti-lu ki su.nigin 6 ma- da-
rimVMA.D[A] A-za-ha-ar ki Bu-ul-ma 1 " Nu-su-us-ma-ar ki [N]u-us-g[a-n]e-[l]u-um ki [Z]i-
zi-ir-[t]um ki [A]- r ra-hi 1 -[ir ki ] [...] "(Su-Suen) destroyed the lands of SimaSki, (namely)
Zabsali, Sigris, Yabulmat, Alumidatim, Garta (and) Satilu, a total of six lands; (plus the
lands of) ..." (Frayne RIME 3/2, 308-12 Su-Sin 5 Ex. 2 9-20 + Ex. 1 14-28); ud-ba
Simas'ki(LU.su) ki ma-da ma-da Za-ab-sa-li ki zag An-sa-an ki -ta a-ab-ba igi-
nim-ma-se buru 5 -gim zi-ga-bi Ia-bu-ul-ma-at ki 'x'-[x-x-a]m ki Si-ig-ri-is ki A-lu-
mi-da-tim ki Ga-ar-da^ A-za-ha-ar ki Bu-ul-ma ki Nu-su-us-ma-ar ki Zi-zi-ir-tum ki A-ra-hi-

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50

Download Date | 10/7/12 12:12 AM

New Light on Simaski and Its Rulers 217

Zabsali clearly was the most important (and therefore probably also the
largest) principality, since the "lands of Zabsali" is a shorthand writing
for the entire Simaskian federation. 9

To the east, the Simaskian territories extended as far as Ansan, while
to the north, they bordered on the shores of the Caspian Sea. 10 In the
west, they appear to have reached deep into the Zagros ranges. This is in-
dicated by the data bearing on the conflict with Simaski in the year Sulgi
46 (see below), as well as by the possible inclusion of Lullubum, a well-
known Zagros locality, among the Simaskian opponents of Su-Suen. 11

Prior to the Simaskian war in the second half of Su-Suen' s reign, the
only documented instance of a conflict between the Ur III state and
the Simaskian lands occurred in the year Sulgi 46, when we find records
of livestock and animal products that were brought to Puzris-Dagan
as "booty of Simaski." 12 This conflict, which also involved operations

ir ki Sa-ti-lu^ Ti-ir-mi-um ki r u n [...], "at that time Simaski (which comprises) the lands of
ZabSali, rose like locusts from the borders of AnSan up to the 'Upper Sea' (i.e., Caspian
Sea), (namely the lands of) ..." (Frayne RIME 3/2, 301-306 Su-Sin 3 ii 14-35).
The combined list of all the lesser Simaskian lands named in these inscriptions is as
follows: Arahir, Azahar, Bulma, Lullubum?, NuSganelum, NuSuSmar, Tarmfum, Zi-
zirtum, [x]- M -6*-[ x ] ki . a «d V-[x-x-a]m ki .
9 See the preceding note and the following two examples: ud-ba SimaSki(LU.su) ki
ma-da ma-da Za-ab-sa-li kl zag! An-sa-an ki -ta [...], "at that time Simaski (which
comprises) the lands of Zabsali, from the border of Ansan [...]" (Frayne, RIME 3/2,
pp. 307-08 Su-Sin 4 ii 21'-23'); ud ma-da Za-a\b\-sa-li^- u ma-d[a m]a-da
Simaski(LU.su) ki -ka mu-hul-a, "when he destroyed the land of Zabsali and the
(other) lands of SimaSki" (Frayne RIME 3/2, 313 Su-Sin 6 lines 5'-8').

10 See the preceding two notes.

11 See Frayne, RIME 3/2, 312 Ex. 1 Caption 8:1-3: Wa-bu-ur-tum [en]si \LuT\-lu-bi-ini^.

12 For the sources in question, see Steinkeller, JAOS 108, 201 n. 31, to which add PDT
802 iv 37, vi 3, 36, vii 38 (Sulgi 47/v); Hilgert Drehem 1 355:4 (Sulgi 48/x). Note that
the former source also names nam-ra-ak kur mar.tu (iv 8, 41), further confirming
that the operations against SimaSki and the Amorites were related. The SimaSkian be-
hind this conflict apparently was a certain Badadu. Note: 16 cow and 25 sheep hides
kus siki mu kus gud udu nam-ra-ak Ba-da-du lu.su ki Su- d En-lil-la
dumu lugal-ta Ulu-lal Su ba-ti, "hides with hair, the hides from the booty of
Badadu, the Simaskian; Ululal received (them) from Su-Enlila, king's son" (Sigrist
Princeton 130:1-11 - Sulgi 46/v). Among other sources bearing on the same campaign
note especially the following two: a two-day banquet at the temples of Enlil and Ninlil
ud ensi Ki-mas ki in-ma-dab 5 - r ba n -a, "when the ensi of Kimas was captured"
(Hilgert Drehem 1 428T5-S 46/v/3); 221 cattle and 10,736 sheep delivered by Bubu
and (the prince) Su-Enlila nam-ra-ak Ki-mas'^ 'Hcf-ar-si* [u ...] r x n -[...] r x 1ki
SuSin[ ki -ta i]r-ra dub 4 z[i-ga-b]i Su- d [En-lfl-la-ke 4 ? Su] ti-a ... tum-
dam, "the booty of KimaS, HarSi [and GN], which came [from] Susa, their four
(former) expenditure tablets which were received by Su-[Enlila?] ... are to be brought
back" (Sigrist Princeton 60:11-17 - Sulgi 48/vii).

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50

Download Date | 10/7/12 12:12 AM

218 Piotr Steinkeller

against the "land of the Amorites," was part of the campaign against
Kimas and Hu'urti, conducted by the prince Su-Enlila. 13 Accordingly,
the Simaskian territory involved must have represented one of the west-
ern-most Simaskian lands. This is made certain by its association, on the
one hand, with Kimas and Hu\irti (both of which were situated in the
western portion of the Kermanshah province 14 ), and, on the other hand,
with the "land of the Amorites," which denotes Jebel Hamrin and, more
generally, the entire piedmont zone, extending from the middle course of
the Tigris to the region of Susiana.

Among the individuals who are identified as Simaskians in Ur III
sources, by far the most prominent is Yabrat 15 (for a complete list of his
attestations, see Appendix below). Yabrat is documented over a period
of twenty-one years, from Sulgi 44 through Su-Sin 8. Yabrat's earliest
mention comes from a Puzris-Dagan tablet, in which he is identified, to-
gether with an Ansanite named Hundah(i)ser, as a supplier of gu.urtjxgu

13 See Michalowski, JCS 31 (1979) 175 and n. 15; Steinkeller, JAOS 108, 201 n. 31. Here
note the unique variant mu ... Ki-mas ki MAR.TU ki ba-hul (YOS 4 86:5), where
MAR.TU ki replaces Hu\irti in the formula of Sulgi's forty-sixth year (mu d Sul-gi ...
Ki-mas k] Hu-ur 5 -ti ki u ma-da-bi ud 1-a mu-hul, "year Sulgi ... destroyed in one
day KimaS, Hu'urti and their [neighboring] lands"). Cf. S. J. Lieberman, JCS 22
(1968/69) 56 n. 28.

14 See Steinkeller, JAOS 108, 201 n. 31.

15 The name is written Ia-ab-ra-at or Ia-a-ab-ra-at. There are also single attestations of
the writings Ia-a-ba-ra-at (MVN 16 707:10; Nisaba 3 73 no. 105:11) and Ab-ra-at
(Archi/Pomponio Drehem 254:2); the latter writing probably also appears in Lafont/
Yildiz Tello Istanbul 4259:5. In Ia-a-ab-ra-at and Ia-a-ba-ra-at, the sign -a- is a gloss,
i.e., Id a -ab/ba-ra-at; cf. Steinkeller in E. C. Stone/P. Zimansky, The Anatomy of a Me-
sopotamian City: Survey and Soundings at Mashkan-shapir (Winona Lake 2005), 40
n. 70. The later spellings E-ba-ra-at and E-ba-ar-ti (see below) reflect the historic shift
of/Vto/e/.

In a number of instances (JCS 31 [1979] 35-36 BMC 2:13'; PDT 807 ii 9; Santag 6
262:2; Buccellati Amorites pis. XI-XII iii 8; JCS 7, 106-07 Kenrick iv 1; Virolleaud
TEL 46 i 2; ITT 5 9667), Yabrat's name is provided with a geographical indicator ki.
The reason for it is unclear. Possibly, the scribes confused it with the toponym Yabru
(Ia-ab-ru ki ), which is mentioned in connection with Huhnuri and Bitum-rabf urn in the
year-formula of Amar-Suen's seventh year. See also Bil-li lu-kin-gi 4 -a Zu-zu-wa-
da-ar lii Ia-a-ab-nfi (MVN 15 216:13 - Su-Suen l/iii/9). Here note that the territorial
possessions of Yabrat may have extended as far as Huhnuri - and therefore also
Yabru? (see below, p. 223). If Yabrat resided near Yabru, the confusion between the
two names would be easy to understand. Thus, the spelling la-ab-ra^ in Santag 6 262:2
would be intended, rather than defective (i.e., Ia-ab-ra^-at)^). An alternative expla-
nation could be that Yabrat's domain lacked a specific toponymic designation. If true,
this may have prompted the Babylonian scribes to lend it Yabrat's name, meaning
something like "Yabrat's land" (as in "Prester John's kingdom").

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50

Download Date | 10/7/12 12:12 AM

New Light on Simaski and Its Rulers

219

Fig. 1: SimaSkian Lands and Neighboring Territories (Adapted after J. Curtis, Ancient
Persia [Cambridge, MA 1990] 5)

animals (probably two-humped Bactrian camels). 16 All the subsequent
references to him invariably involve his envoys. 17 Thus, with a possible

16 Hilgert Drehem 1 171:8-12 (Sulgi 44/x). The entries in question name 9 male and 5
female gu.uruxgu, delivered by Yabrat, a Simaskian (lu.su), followed by 2 male
gu.uruxgu, supplied by Hundah(i)Ser, the "man" of AnSan {Hu-un-da-hi-se-er lii An-
sa-an ki ). For this text, and the zoological identification of the gu.uruxgu, see in detail
my forthcoming article "Camels in Ur III Babylonia?" (to appear in a Festschrift for
L. E. Stager, edited by D. Schloen, Chicago 2007). As I suggest there, the animals in
question almost certainly represented a diplomatic gift for Sulgi.

17 One of those attestations (Lafont/Yildiz Tello Istanbul 4259:5-9 - [/vi]) involves an

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50

Download Date | 10/7/12 12:12 AM

220 Piotr Steinkeller

exception of the gu.uruxgu episode (as part of which he and Hun-
dah(i)ser of Ansan, the other supplier of the gu.uruxgu, may actually
have traveled to Babylonia), Yabrat probably never visited Babylonia in
person.

As considered already by W. G. Lambert, 18 and argued subsequently
by M. W. Stolper 19 and this author, 20 Yabrat can confidently be identified
with the Simaskian ruler Ebarat/Ebarti I, who is given the third spot in
the SKL.

The same Ebarat is invoked in two successive year-formulae, which
appear on the tablets from Susa dating some time after the year Ibbi-
Suen 3 (which marks the end of Ibbi-Suen's effective rule over Susa). 21
This extends the span of Yabrat/Ebarat attestations to at least twenty-six
years (Sulgi 44 through Ibbi-Suen 5 or later).

The other Simaskian rulers whose names appear both in Ur III docu-
mentation and in the SKL are Kirname, Ta'azite, Kindattu, and Idattu I.
Of those, Kirname is first in the SKL. He (or, more precisely, his envoys)
is documented twice, in the sources dating to Su-Suen 3/iv/12 and
Su-Suen 6/ii/16 respectively. 22 In both instances, Kirname's envoys ac-
company those of Yabrat. But Kirname's contacts with Babylonia may
have begun considerably earlier, if, as it appears quite likely, he is the
same person as a certain Gu-ri-na-me, whose slaves are named in MVN
12 125, dating to Sulgi 46/xii. 23

Passing now to Ta'azite, this ruler corresponds to either Tazitta I
(no. 2) or Tazitta II (no. 4) of the SKL. 24 Like Kirname, Ta"azite is
attested via his envoys, who are documented in the years Amar-Suen

envoy of Yabrat's son, who, quite likely, is Kindattu. For the filiation of Kindattu, see
below p. 221 f. Unfortunately, the tablet in question does not use a year-formula, and
so this point cannot further be verified.
is Iraq 41 (1979) 38-44.

19 ZA 82, 49-50. See also E. Carter/M. W. Stolper, Elam: Surveys of Political History
and Archaeology (Berkeley 1984) 20.

20 JAOS 108, 200.

21 Steinkeller, Sale Documents of the Ur III Period. FAOS 17 (Stuttgart 1989) 274-75;
K. De Graef, Les noms d'annee du roi Simas'keen Ebarat I, Akkadica 125 (2004)
107-08; eadem, Les archives d'Igibuni: Les documents Ur III du chantier B a Suse.
MDP 54 (Ghent 2005) 99. 105-06. 112-13.

22 So- r x n -[...] ... Ba-a[b-du-sd\ lii-kin-gi 4 -a Ia-[ab]-ra-al LV.sv.A^-me ... Su-tu-un-gu
lii-kin-gi 4 -a Ki-ir-na-mi LU.su.A ki (Sigrist Ontario 149:1-5 - Su-Suen 3/iv/12); Ia-
a-da-az lii-kin-gi 4 -a Ki-ir-na-me ... Zu-ur-zu-ra lii-kin-gi 4 -a Ia-ab-ra-at lu.su 1 "-
me-eS (Jacobsen Copenhagen 7:6-10 - Su-Suen 6/ii/6).

23 See Steinkeller, JAOS 108, 201-02.

24 This identification was made first by Stolper, ZA 82, 50. See also Carter/ Stolper, Elam 20.

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50

Download Date | 10/7/12 12:12 AM

New Light on Simaski and Its Rulers 221

8/i/18, Su-Suen 2/xi/24, and Su-Suen 2/xii/14; there is also one undat-
able occurrence. 25 In these four examples, his name is variously spelled
Da-a-zi(-te), Da-a-zi- T te\ Da-a-zi\{Gi)-te, and Da-at-zi-at-a. Importantly,
Ta'azite's envoys also accompanied those of Yabrat. In contrast to Kir-
name, however, Ta'azite is identified as an Ansanite, and not as a Simas-
kian. The significance of this fact will be discussed below.

As for Kindattu and Idattu I (nos. 6 and no. 7 in the SKL respec-
tively), both of them are named in an Isin tablet dating to Isbi-Erra's
"thirteenth" year. 26

Since Ebarat I (Yabrat), Kirname, and Tazitta (Ta'azite) are named
concurrently in Ur III sources, the conclusion is unavoidable that they
were contemporaries. 27 While this appears certain, it remains unclear,
first, how these three rulers related to one another, and second, what
their relationship was to the following kings of the SKL. Beginning with
the second question, much of this uncertainty is now removed by a new
inscription of Idattu I, 28 which identifies Idattu I as a son of Kindattu and
grandson of Ebarat I:

1) A I-da-du For Idattu,

2) dumu-dumu d E-ba-ra-at grandson of Ebarat,

3) dumu d Ki-in-da-du son of Kindattu,

25 Da-bu-du-uk lu-kin-gi 4 -a Id-ab-ra-atiXj.su ... Gir-ri lu-kin-gi 4 -a Da-a-zi(-te) lii
An-sa-an* (BIN 3 477:6-11 - Amar-Suen 8/1/18); \B\a-ab-du-sa lu-kin-gi 4 -a
[Id] -ab-ra-at lu. su ki ... Si-la-ti-ir lii-kin-gi 4 -a Da-a-zi\(oi)-te lii An-sa-an ki (Baby-
loniaca 8 pi. VII Pupil 30:2-3 - Su-Suen 2/xi/24); Wa-ab-du-sa lii- r kin 1 -gi 4 -a Id-
ab-ra-at LU.su[ ki ] ... Si-la-ti-ir lii-kin-gi 4 -a Da-a-zi-'te* lu An-sa-arO" (Astour AV
375 Nesbit D lines 2-4 - Su-Suen 2/xii/14); NN lu-kin-gi 4 -a dumu ' AbV -ra-at . . .
NN lii-kin-gi 4 -a Da-at-zi-at-a-ka (Lafont/Yildiz Tello Istanbul 4259:5-9 - [-/vi]).

26 lii-kin-gi 4 -a Ki-in-da-du lii-iis-sa-ni 5-bi ... lii-kin-gi 4 -a I-da-[du] lii- lis -
sa-ni [1-bi] lu-kin-gi 4 -a L[u?.su?.A?] ki , "the envoy of Kindattu (and) his five
followers . . . the envoy of Ida[ttu] (and) his [one] follower; these are the messengers
of r Simaski? 1 " (BIN 9 38:8-18 Isbi-Erra "13"). See Stolper, ZA 82, 47-48; Steinkeller,
JAOS 108, 200 n. 27. The close association of Idattu with Kindattu, apparent in this
example, is now explained by the fact of Idattu being Kindattu's son. See immediately
below.

27 For this conclusion, see already Stolper, ZA 72, 50.

28 This inscription, which is written in classical Ur III script, is preserved in duplicate
(both texts are identical) on two bronze vessels of unknown provenance. The former
piece, shaped as a pot, was sold in 2001 at a Christie's auction in London. For a photo-
graph and description, see Christie's Catalogue, Fine Antiquities, Wednesday 25, April
21, 2001 (London), 16-17 no. 23. Its present whereabouts are unknown to me. The
other piece, a shallow bowl, is now part of the Martin Schoyen Collection in Oslo,
Norway (MS 4476). A full edition of it will be offered by me in a forthcoming edition
of historical inscriptions from the Schoyen Collection, edited by A. R. George.

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50

Download Date | 10/7/12 12:12 AM

222 Piotr Steinkeller

4) sip ad d Utu the shepherd of Utu,

5) ki-ag d Inana the beloved one of Inana,

6) lugal An-sa-arfi king of Ansan,

7) lugal Si-ma-as-ki u El am -ma king of Simaski and Elam,

8) Ki-te-en-ra-ki-id-da-bi Kiten-rakittapi,

9) sukal-mah Elam-ma u te-eb-bi-ir the chancellor of Elam and

the high judge, 29

10) arad-da-a-ni his servant,

11) mu-na-dim fashioned (this object) for

him.

The resulting sequence Ebarat I > Kindattu > Idattu I roughly agrees
with the SKL, where the same rulers are given ranks no. 3, no. 6, and no.
7 respectively. This fact shows, that, at least as far as its treatment of the
line of Ebarat I is concerned, the SKL is a genuinely chronographic
source. 30

The same, however, is not true of the SKL's treatment of the other
early Simaskian kings, since, as already noted, Ebarat I, Kirname and
Tazitta (Ta'azite) were contemporaries. But what was the exact nature
of the relationship between these three rulers? For this question, of key
importance is the fact that, as observed earlier, the envoys of Kirname
and Tazitta invariably accompanied those of Ebarat I. This, in my view,
indicates the existence of close ties among this Simaskian trio. But
whether those ties were familial or political, we cannot determine at this
time.

Be that as it may (and I will return to this problem below), the
information that Kindattu was Ebarat's son is of enormous historical
importance, since it establishes a direct connection between the conque-
ror of Ur and the most prominent Simaskian of Ur III times. This calls
for a closer look at Ebarat and his political career. While it is known that
Ebarat maintained regular diplomatic contacts with the court of Ur from
Sulgi 44 through Su-Suen 8, we regrettably lack any information as to
his whereabouts during all that time. In fact, all that we know for certain

29 Here we find incontrovertible evidence that the sukal-mah of Elam was a deputy of
the king of Ansan. The obvious inference from this is that the later (Old Babylonian)
sukal-mahs of Susa were also dependent on the rulers of Ansan. However, this prob-
lem is too complicated to be treated here. For tepper, "high judge," see AHw., 1347b.

30 This new evidence, plus various other data presented in this article, renders largely in-
valid the evaluation of the SKL by J.-J. Glassner, Les dynasties dAwan et de SimaSki,
NABU 1996/34. Note, in particular, the following conclusion: "Malgre les apparences,
il est difficile de la considerer comme une source historiographique serieuse."

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50

Download Date | 10/7/12 12:12 AM

New Light on Simaski and Its Rulers 223

about his territorial possessions is that sometime after the third regnal
year of Ibbi-Suen he established himself at Susa. However, Ebarat's
control of Susa appears to have been short-lived, since in the ninth year
of Ibbi-Suen the Babylonians were able to launch a military campaign
against Huhnuri and Ansan (which presupposes their possession of Susa
at that time). 31 This is further indicated by the fact that only two of Eba-
rat's year-formulae survive at Susa. All in all, these facts circumscribe the
period of Ebarat's possible control over Susa to the years Ibbi-Suen 4-8.
Otherwise, we are in total darkness as to where Ebarat ruled prior to
those events. Significantly, however, his name (and, for that matter, those
of Kirname and Tazitta alike) is not mentioned in connection with any of
the Simaskian lands that were the object of Su-Suen's campaign. 32 In my
view, this should be taken as an indication that Ebarat's domain was situ-
ated in the eastern-most section of Simaskian territories, either on the
border with or possibly even within the land of Ansan itself. Purely as
an educated guess, I place that domain halfway between Tall-e Malyan
(i.e., Ansan's capital) and Huhnuri, which, based on a recently published
Ur III inscription from Iran, 33 is very likely identical (or at least geo-
graphically associated) with the site of Tappeh Bormi (3 km southwest of
Ramhormoz).

mu d I-bi- d Suen lugal Urim ki -ma-ke 4 Hu-iih-nu-ri ki sag-kul ma-da An-sa-
an ki -se (var.: Elam ki ) a dugud(-bi) ba-si-in-de 6 [x] sum? sa bi'-in-gar,
"year Ibbi-Suen, king of Ur, brought massive (military) force to Huhnhuri, the lock of
Ansan/Elam (and) ..." (year Ibbi-Suen 9). It seems reasonable to think that, both for
strategic and logistical reasons, the control of Susa and its region would have been in-
dispensable to be able to launch a campaign against Huhnuri. Also, it seems unlikely
that Huhnuri had been Ibbi-Suen's real target. That target, I suggest, was Ansan (or,
more broadly, Ebarat's domain).

In fact, Ebarat appears to have sided with Su-Suen in that conflict. See below p. 227. To
my knowledge, the only Simaskian opponent of Su-Suen that is mentioned both in Su-
Suen's historical inscriptions and in contemporary administrative records is dun -gd-at
of Yabulmat (Frayne, RIME 3/2, 312 Ex. 1 Caption 12). Because of his unique name,
I assume that he is the same person as DUN-gd-a-at lu Zi-da-ah-ri^ (Nesbit Drehem
XVIE15 - Amar-Suen 7/viii/2; PDT 1170:12 - Amar-Suen 7/viii/7; HUCA 29 [1958]
77 no. 6:3 - Amar-Suen 7/viii/16; JCS 57 [2005] 28 no. 5:12 - Amar-Suen 8/ix/12;
Hilgert Drehem 2 555:3 - Amar-Suen 8/ix/13; BIN 3 173:7 - Amar-Suen 8/ix/14). Cf.
D. O. Edzard, AfO 19 (1959/60) 26. Here note that, in Su-Suen 1, the men of Zidahri
appeared together with some Simaskians at Nippur to take an oath of allegiance (to
Su-Suen) in Ninurta's temple: nam-erem e d Nin-urta mu lu.su u lu Zi-da-ah-
«' ki -ke 4 -ne-se, "(animals for) the oath of allegiance in the temple of Ninurta, on
behalf of the SimaSkians and the men of Zidahri" (JCS 14 [1960] 111 no. 14:16-17 -
Su-Suen 1/ix).

B. M. Nasrabadi, Eine Inschrift des Amar-Suena aus Tappeh Bormi (Iran), ZA 95
(2005) 161-71.

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50

Download Date | 10/7/12 12:12 AM

224 Piotr Steinkeller

This hypothesis is strongly supported by the fact that Ansan was the
focal point of the kingdom of Kindattu, Ebarat's son and apparent suc-
cessor. Thus, (1) Kindattu is associated with Ansan in later historical
sources 34 ; (2) it was to Ansan that Ibbi-Suen was carried after the sack of
Ur 35 ; (3) it was from Ansan that the statue of Nanna of Ur, presumably
removed from there by Kindattu, was returned to Ur by Suilisu, Isbi-
Erra's successor at Isin 36 ; and (4) it was from Ansan that diplomatic
letters are known to have been sent to Isbi-Erra not long before Kindat-
tu's descent on Babylonia. 37 Even more importantly, the primary royal
title of Kindattu 38 (and later of his son Idaddu, see the inscription above),
was the "king of Ansan."

That Ebarat's domain bordered on (or perhaps even was part of)
the land of Ansan is further indicated by the fact that the envoys 39 of
the "men" of Ansan - the latter being Hundah(i)ser, Binzi, 40 and Tazitta

34 Ki-in-da-tu\u Elam ki -ma-ra inim-bi b a- an-na- de 6 An-sa^-an^ Simaski(iXj.su) ki
Seg n ba-ab-gi 4 kur im-ma-an-te r ugnim 1 -ma-ni pu-uh-ru-um-bi inim
mu-na-ni-ib-be, "the news was carried to Kindattu, the man of Elam; the Ansanites
and Simaskians gave a battle cry; he (i.e., Kindattu) approached the mountains (with
them); he addresses his assembled army" (ISbi-Erra B = ISbi-Erra and Kindattu Seg-
ment E 7-9).

35 i I-bi- i Suen kur Elam ki -ma-§e « is bur-ra tiim-mu-de i§(i) Za-bu( ki l gaba
a-ab-ba-ka-ta (var.: gaba hur-sag-ga-ta) zag An-sa 4 -an ki -se, "that Ibbi-
Suen will be taken to the land Elam in fetters from the sand dunes of Zabu on the coast
of the Sea (var.: on the border of the mountain ranges) to the border of AnSan" (Lam-
entation over Sumer and Ur 35-36); bala gilim.ma sd I-bi- d Suen lugal Urim ki
ka-mu-us-su ana An-sa 4 -an ki am-ku i-bak-ku-u, "the reign of destruction of Ibbi-
Suen, king of Ur, who, in tears, went as captive to AnSan" (ACh IStar LXVII rev. ii
11-12).

36 ud d Nanna An-sa-an ki -ta Urim ki -Se mu-un-tum-ma-a, "when he brought
(back) (the statue of) Nanna from Ansan to Ur" (Frayne, RIME 4, 14-15 Su-ilisu
1:8-11).

37 2 ku§ dug-gan r ti 1 -bala kiSib-ra u-na-a-dug 4 An-sa-an ki -ta ga-ga-de,
"2 leather courier's pouches to keep the sealed letters from Ansan" (BIN 9 302:1-3 -
ISbi-Erra "8").

38 See I-ma-zu I dumu Ki-in-da-du I lugal An-sa-an-na^ (MDP 43/2, pi. 34 no. 1679
[drawing], pi. 157 no. 1679 [photograph], an impression of a cylinder seal on an un-
published tablet, Teheran Museum no. 2514).

39 In Ur III times, foreign envoys or emissaries were invariably designated by the term
lu-kin-gi 4 -a. See T. M. Sharlach, Diplomacy and the Rituals of Politics at the Ur III
Court, JCS 57 (2005) 18-19.

40 Zu-bu-us lu-kin-gi 4 -a Id-ab-ra-at LV.su ki ... Hu-un-na-zi \u-kin-gi 4 -a Bi-in-zi lu
An-sa-an^ (A 5477:8'-9' - unpublished; ca. Amar-Suen 2/vi/23); La-ba-na-am-zi lii
Id-a[b]-ra-at rkil . . . Ad-da-[bul]-hu-dah lii Bi-in-zi [(lii) An-sa-an^] (PDT 807 ii 9-10 -
ca. Amar-Suen 2/ix/23). The envoy Hunnazi (A 5477) may eventually have become a
ruler of AnSan himself. See Buccellati Amorites pis. XI-XII 22 iii 13-14 (SS 6/7/20),

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50

Download Date | 10/7/12 12:12 AM

New Light on Simaski and Its Rulers 225

(Ta'azite) - routinely accompanied those of Ebarat. As a matter of fact,
we lack any documented cases of an Ansanite envoy ever appearing
independently of an envoy ofYabrat. Moreover, these Ansanites are always
listed following Ebarat's envoys, which almost certainly implies their
lesser rank and status.

Indeed, the same "inferiority" of Ansanites vis-a-vis Ebarat is discern-
able in the Puzris-Dagan tablet recording the delivery of the gu.uruxgu
animals (see above, p. 218). There, Ebarat, bearing thirteen gu.uruxgu,
is given precedence over Hundah(i)ser of Ansan, delivering only two
GU.URUXGU.

And last but not least is the fact that Ebarat's apparent ally Tazitta,
who figures as a Simaskian in the SKL, is identified as an Ansanite in Ur
III sources. This datum, too, points to Ebarat's close connection with
Ansan and its rulers.

In consideration of all these data, the following historical scenario may
be proposed. During the years Sulgi 44 - Su-Suen 8, Ebarat ruled over
a kingdom embracing either the western borderlands of Ansan or the
western portion of Ansan itself. Whichever was the case, in his relation-
ship with Ansan proper Ebarat held an upper hand, probably controlling
it through his allies or vassals, possibly his relatives (a cadet line of Eba-
rat's family?). Among those were Hundah(i)ser, Binzi, and Tazitta.

Ebarat's "special relationship" with Ansan must be seen within the
context of the Ur III state's eastern policy, which was largely created
by Sulgi. As Babylonia began to expand territorially in the first half of
Sulgi's reign, Sulgi strived to establish political alliances with Ansan
and Marhasi (Ansan's eastern neighbor 41 ) as a way of protecting Baby-
lonia's eastern flank, which remained in constant unrest, owing mainly
to the Simaskian resistance and the Amorite intrusions into that region.
This strategic manceuver began in Sulgi's eighteenth year, when a Su-
merian princess was given in marriage to the ruler of Marhasi. 42 A si-

which names Hu-se-ri-dah lu Hu-na-z[i] and 5 lu-iis-sa-ni (following Ebarat's
envoy Nimzi).

41 For the location of Marhasi, see Steinkeller, The Question of Marhasi: A Contribution
to the Historical Geography of Iran in the Third Millennium B.C., ZA 72 (1982)
237-65; idem, New Light on MarhaSi and its Contacts with Makkan and Babylonia,
Journal of Magan Studies 1 (2006) (in press); D. T. Potts, Exit Aratta: Southeastern
Iran and the Land of Marhashi, Name-ye Iran-e Bastan 4 (2004) 41-51.

42 mu Li-wir x (omxm)-mi-da-su dumu-munus lugal nam-nin Mar-ha-si^ ba-il,
"year Liwwir-mittasu, the king's daughter, was elevated to the queenship of Marhasi"
(year Sulgi 18).

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50

Download Date | 10/7/12 12:12 AM

226 Piotr Steinkeller

milar dynastic union with Ansan followed twelve years later (year Sulgi
30).«

The alliance with Marhasi proved to be highly successful, since it
endured all the way into the reign of Ibbi-Suen. 44 Ansan, however, was a
different matter altogether. The familial ties with the House of Ur had
clearly not been sufficient to insure Ansan's loyalty, since already three
years later (year Sulgi 33) Sulgi was forced to intervene in Ansan mili-
tarily; another, more extensive campaign against Ansan appears to have
taken place during the following year. 45

43 mu dumu-munus lugal ensi An-sa-an/-na ki -ke 4 ba-an-tuku, "year the
king's daughter was married by the governor of Ansan" (year Sulgi 30); mu dumu
lugal nin An-sa-an-na-Se ba-gin (UET 3 300:8). The ensi in question possibly
was Selebum, who is mentioned in an undated text from Girsu/Lagas: I-din- A VA ra-
gaba (Se-) le-bu-um ensi An-sa-an ki (RTC 328:4-7). This text must date roughly to
Sulgi 33, since it also refers to an ensi of AdamDUN named Ur-gigir (lii Ur-e is gigir
ensi A-dam-uuN^ An-sa-an ki -ta gin-na, lines 10-11), who is otherwise docu-
mented in a tablet from Sulgi 33 (see below n. 45). Cf. Sa-la-bu-um ensi An-sa-an ki ,
who appears in an unpublished tablet, cited by H. de Genouillac, Tablettes 12 MIO
2372.

44 As demonstrated by the continuous presence of MarhaSean envoys at the court of Ur -
from Sulgi 46 through Ibbi-Suen 1 (see P. Michalowski, ZA 95, 73-74; T. M. Sharlach,
JCS 57, 24-25), the regular movements of officials between Babylonia and MarhaSi,
the deployment of Marhasean troops in Babylonia, and the presentation to Ibbi-Suen
of a Meluhhan leopard by an unidentified ruler of Marhasi (see Steinkeller, ZA 72, 253
and n. 60; D. T. Potts, Total Prestation in Marhashi-Ur Relations, Iranica Antiqua 37
[2002] 343-57).

45 That Sulgi campaigned against AnSan in his thirty-third regnal year is shown by a
PuzriS-Dagan tablet dating to Sulgi 33/xi, which records sheep delivered as part of the
booty of Ansan by an ensi of AdamDUN: 44 udu-hi-a ba-iis nam-ra-ak An-sa-
an ki ki Ur-s is gigir ensi A-dam-DVN ki -ta. (von Soden AV 80 no. 6:1-3). Although
it is possible that this is the event that gave name to Sulgi's following, i.e., thirty-fourth
year (mu An-sa-an ki ba-hul; with a variant ud An-sa-an^ Sul-gi mu-hul
[NRVN 7:10]), a more likely solution is that the formula in question refers to a separ-
ate campaign. I base this conclusion on the existence of a unique formula mu An-sa-
an ki a-ra 2-kam ba-hul, "year AnSan was destroyed for the second time" (YOS 4
286:7), which is probably a variant of mu An-sa-ari^ ba-hul. Such an assumption
finds further support in the Girsu/Lagas tablets from Sulgi 34 and 35, which refer
to amphibious movements of troops between AnSan and Makkan (ugnim An-sa-
an ki -ta bala-a, "troops transferred from Ansan," ugnim/eren Ma-gan ki -se
bala-a, "troops transferred to Makkan"; MVN 10 149 [Sulgi 34/v-viii], TLB 3 145
[Sulgi 34/v-35/ii], TLB 3 146 [S 34/ix-35/ii]; edited and discussed by R. K. Englund,
Ur III-Fischerei 107-25). Moreover, an Umma tablet dating to Sulgi 35 records jewels
and precious objects designated as gil-sa kiir Elam, "treasure of the land of Elam"
(TCL 5 6044 vi 6). Assuming that these items were fruits of the AnSan campaign (so
G. Pettinato, Oriens Antiquus 21 [1982] 49-72), chances are that the sack of Ansan
took place in the immediately preceding year (i.e., Sulgi 34) rather than two years ear-

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50

Download Date | 10/7/12 12:12 AM

New Light on Simaski and Its Rulers 227

It was those upheavals, apparently, that were directly responsible for
Ebarat's rise to power. Sulgi's campaigns must have weakened Ansan
considerably - both politically and economically, 46 very likely creating a
power vacuum. I assume that it was at that juncture that Ebarat was able
to assume an upper hand vis-a-vis Ansan, perhaps even turning it into a
vassal dependency. Whether he achieved that goal on his own, or with
Sulgi's support - as part of the latter's grand geopolitical design - re-
mains unclear.

Whichever the case may have been, all the indications are that
throughout the reigns of Sulgi, Amar-Suen, and Su-Suen, Ebarat re-
mained loyal to the House of Ur. He may even have cooperated militarily
with Babylonia. One thinks here of two specific occasions for such a co-
operation, in fact. Assuming that his territorial possessions reached to
the west as far as Huhnuri (probably Tappeh Bormi near Ramhormoz,
see above p. 223), Amar-Suen's campaign against Huhnuri in the latter's
seventh regnal year very likely involved Ebarat's support and perhaps
even his active military participation.

The other occasion may have been the Simaskian revolt against Ur in
the second half of Su-Suen's reign. Since Ebarat's (and likewise Kir-
name's) envoys continued to travel to Babylonia during those years, he
clearly took no part in it; if he participated in that conflict at all, it was
certainly on Su-Suen's side. 47

lier. Accordingly, I conclude that there were two successive operations against Ansan:
a preliminary one in Sulgi 33, and the main in Sulgi 34.

46 How extensive and thorough Sulgi's looting of AnSan must have been is shown by the
earlier-cited text TCL 5 6044 (see the preceding note). The hundreds of precious ob-
jects listed there clearly represented only Umma's share of the loot. Thus, the size of
the entire Ansan treasure, most of which probably ended up at Ur and Nippur, must
have been truly colossal.

47 Here it is significant that, precisely at the time of the SimaSkian war, Su-Suen was sent
from Ansan a diplomatic gift consisting of a "great goat" (apparently some exotic
caprid): ud ma-da Za-a[b]-sa-li ki] u ma-d[a m]a-da Simaski(i,iJ.su) ki -ka mu-
hul-a maS gal giin un An-sa-an-na ki mu-un-de 6 -na dam-Si-lum-bi mu-na-
an-dim, "when he destroyed the land of Zabsali and the (other) lands of Simaski, he
fashioned (for deity NN) a likeness of the 'great goat' that was brought to him (at that
time) as tribute of Ansan" (Frayne RIME 3/2, 313 Su-Sin 6 lines 5'-13'). The timing of
this gift certainly was not accidental; note that the text emphasizes the historical cir-
cumstances of the gift, which is quite unique. Thus, the gift must have symbolized
Ansan's loyalty to Su-Suen at the time when he faced a grave political and military
challenge. Its symbolic message is quite obvious: an AnSanite goat (= AnSan) remains
in the fold of the "shepherd" of Sumer and Akkad. Should we assume that it was Eba-
rat who was behind this offering?

Another indication of good relations between Babylonia and AnSan during Su-Suen's

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50

Download Date | 10/7/12 12:12 AM

228 Piotr Steinkeller

This situation changed dramatically in the beginning of Ibbi-Suen's
reign, when Ebarat, apparently sensing the coming end of Ur, occupied
Susa and established himself there as an independent ruler (sometime
after Ibbi-Suen 3 and before Ibbi-Suen 9). 48 By so doing, he turned from
one of the staunchest allies of Babylonia into the most dangerous enemy
she was yet to face. In response to this threat, and as a sign of changing
times, Ibbi-Suen now approached his former arch-enemy Zabsali (in
year Ibbi-Suen 5), 49 apparently hoping to create with Zabsali and other
Simaskian lands an alliance against Ebarat, and so to circumscribe his
territorial expansion and growing political power.

It appears that these efforts were temporarily successful, since Eba-
rat's possession of Susa was very brief (two years or so). He may have
been dislodged therefrom by Ibbi-Suen's military campaign in the year
Ibbi-Sin 9, whose main target undoubtedly was Ansan (which, by that
time, may have completely passed under Ebarat's rule), and therefore
against Ebarat himself as well. If Ebarat was no longer alive by that time,
the campaign in question was directed against his son Kindattu. The fol-
lowing events are well-known: Kindattu consolidates his power over
Ansan and all the Simaskian territories; expands his rule to Susa and the
Susiana; sacks Ur and brings hapless Ibbi-Suen as a prisoner to Ansan.

Certainly, the correctness of this reconstruction can be proved (or
disproved) only by the appearance of new data. What is not in doubt,
however, is the significance of the SKL. As demonstrated by Idaddu's in-
scription (see above pp. 221-222), the SKL is built around a genuine
dynastic tradition, which centers on the line of Ebarat I: Ebarat I (no. 3),
Kindattu (no. 6), and Idattu I (no. 7). This line continues with Tan-Ru-

reign are the references to a Sumerian princess traveling to Ansan, probably to be
given in marriage to its ruler: ni'g-giin-na An-za(-gar)-ra-se iL-ga mu
dumu-munus lugal An-sa-an-&e gin-na-Se, "(seven slave women) carrying
supplies to Anzagar (of Umma) as the king's daughter went to Ansan" (Yildiz/Gomi
Umma 2202:4-5 - Su-Suen 5/-; Umma); dumu-munus lugal An-sa-an ki -Se
du-ni, "(food provisions for) the king's daughter going to Ansan" (ZA 19 [1905/06]
385 lines 9'— 11' - Su-Suen [5?]/i; Girsu/Lagas). [N. B. there appears to have been yet
another Sumerian princess that was married off to AnSan. See MVN 5 145:1-5 = Wat-
son Birmingham 2 166 (Umma), dating to Sulgi 44: 5 sila i-'gis 1 l(ban) ga-har
dumu-munus lugal An-sa-an k '-se gin-na su ba-ti, "the king's daughter re-
ceived 5 liters of sesame oil (and) 10 liters of cheese (when) she went to AnSan." Cf.
below n. 51.]

48 See above, p. 223.

49 mu Tu-ki-in-PA-mi-ig-ri-sa dumu-munus lugal ensi Za-ab-sa-li ki ba-an-tuku,
"year Tukin-hatti-migrisa, the king's daughter, was married by the ensi of Zabsali"
(year Ibbi-Suen 5).

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50

Download Date | 10/7/12 12:12 AM

New Light on Simaski and Its Rulers 229

hurater (no. 8), who is otherwise known to have been the son of Idattu
I. 50 Apart from having continued for at least four generations, that tradi-
tion was also associated with a specific territorial state - Ebarat's original
kingdom - which gradually swallowed up Ansan and other Simaskian
territories, and eventually came to embrace Susa and the Susiana as
well. 51

The central position of Ebarat's family in the SKL further suggests
that Kirname and Tazitta - as well as the mysterious Lu- r x-x-akV-lu-uh-

50 See I-da-du ki-ag d Insusinak lugal Si-ma-as-ki u Elam-ma Tan- d Ru-hu-ra-t[i-ir]
dumu ki-[ag-ga-ni ensi Susin ki ] (MDP 14, pi. Ill, 4 lines 1-7 = F. Malbran-
Labat, Les inscriptions royales de Suse. Briques de l'epoque paleo-elamite a PEmpire
neo-elamite [Paris 1995] 29 no. 9); [Tan- d ]Ru-hu-[ra-ti-ir] I ensi Su5in ki / [ki-ag]
A {Insusinak\ / [du]mu I-da-d[u] (MDP 43/2, pi. 34 no. 1675 [drawing], pi. 156 no.
1675 [photograph], an impression of a cylinder seal on an unpublished tablet, Sb
2298). This filiation is also recorded in the inscriptions of the twelfth-century ruler Sil-
hak-Insusinak (Konig EKI nos. 48 § 2, 48a § 3, 48b § 3).

The SKL then continues with Ebarat II (no. 9) and Idattu II (no. 10). While the familial
relation of Ebarat II to the other Simaskians is unclear, Idattu II is known to have been
the son of Tan-Ruhurater. See Malbran-Labat, Inscriptions 26-28 nos. 6-7; 29 no. 8;
MDP 43/3, pi. 33 no. 1677 (drawing), pi. 156 no. 1677 (photograph). It would seem,
therefore, that Ebarat II was either a younger brother of Tan-Ruhurater or Tan-Ruhu-
rater's eldest son.

51 This new appreciation of Ebarat I and his political importance forces us seriously to
consider that the royal seal published by W. G. Lambert, Iraq 41 (1979) 15-17 no. 42
and pi. V no. 42 (photograph) (for a superior photograph, see RA 83 [1989] 26 fig. A),
concerns this ruler, rather than Ebarat II. This seal, which probably depicts Ebarat
handing flowers to his wife, bears the following inscription: d [£? -bal -r]a-at lugal /
r x n -[...] / dam ki!- r ag n -[ga-ni], "Ebarat, the king; Temale Name 1 , [(is) his]
bel[oved] wife" (Lambert's reading na- rarr^-\ta-su\, while probable, seems less likely;
n. b. the restoration Si-[mas-gi ki ] in the second line of the inscription, proposed by
M.-J. Steve, RA 83 [1989] 15, with a translation "(A) Ebarat, roi de Simaski, son
epouse cherie," is impossible, since (1) a dedicatory inscription of this type is unknown
among third millennium seal inscriptions, (2) the GN would be expected to be written
in the same line as lugal, and (3) the first sign of the second line definitely does not look
like si). Accordingly, this seal must have belonged to Ebarat's wife. Though the use of a
divine semantic indicator before Ebarat's name is seemingly a problem, the spelling
i Ia-a-ba-ra-at in one of the Susa tablets with Ebarat I's year formulae (MDP 23 292)
shows that Ebarat I achieved deification already during his lifetime.
Unfortunately, the name of Ebarat's wife is not preserved. Still, given Ebarat's close
and long-lasting ties with the House of Ur, a possibility that she was a Sumerian prin-
cess might be considered. As we have seen earlier (see above n. 47), at least two times
during Ebarat's tenure Sumerian princesses traveled to Ansan, in the years Sulgi 44
and Su-Suen 5, respectively. Tantalizingly, it was in Sulgi 44 that Ebarat supplied his
gu.uruxgu - and possibly even traveled to Babylonia at that time. Is it possible, then,
that he (or alternatively his Ansanite companion Hundah(i)ser) had also collected a
bride on that occasion?

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50

Download Date | 10/7/12 12:12 AM

230 Piotr Steinkeller

ha-an (no. 5), who cannot so far be positively identified with any of the
Simaskians known from Ur III sources 52 - were all Ebarat's kinsmen,
who co-ruled with him over his domain as his viceroys or deputies. In
the case of Tazitta, we know that he presided, apparently as Ebarat's sur-
rogate, over Ansan. The case of Kirname is more difficult. Because of his
prominent placement in the SKL, Kirname must have been a personage
nearly on par with Ebarat. The fact that his dates match those of
Ebarat, and that he is clearly given less importance than Ebarat in Ur III
documentation, excludes the possibility of him being Ebarat's father.
Should we assume, therefore, that he was Ebarat's brother, who perhaps
ranked only second to Ebarat in the administration of the latter's king-
dom? This question takes us back to the historical reconstruction of the
period, which, as pointed out earlier, cannot as yet be fully drawn.

Appendix: Attestations of Yabrat/Ebarat in Ur III Documentation

Note: The documentation does not include Ebarat's date-formulae in Susa texts. Unless
stated otherwise the origin of sources is PuzriS-Dagan.

Sulgi 44/x/13: Ia-ab-ra-at lu.su delivers 13 gu.uruxgu ... Hu-un-da-hi-se-er lii An-sa-
an ki delivers 2 gu-uruxgu (Hilgert Drehem 1 171:8-12).

Sulgi 46/ix: NN lii Ia-ab-ra-at* (JCS 31 [1979] 35-36 BMC 2:13' - cited courtesy of
M. Molina, Base de Datos de Textos Sumerios).

[Amar-Suen 2/vi/]23: Zu-bu-us lii-kin-gi 4 -a Ia-ab-ra-at lu.su 1 " ... Hu-un-na-zi lii-
kin-gi 4 -a Bi-in-zi lii An-sa-an* (A 5477:8'-9' - unpublished). The date is recon-
structed based on parallels with Fish Behrens 254 (Amar-Suen 2/vi/3) and Legrain
TRU 305 (Amar-Suen 2/vi/4).

[ca. Amar-Suen 2/ix/23]: La-ba-na-am-zi lii Ia-a[b]-ra-at Tkil ... Ad-da-[bul-Nil]-hu-dah
lii Bi-in-zi [(lii) An-sa-an*] (PDT 807 ii 9-10). The date is reconstructed based on
Langdon Archives of Drehem 67 (Amar-Suen 2/ix/23).

Amar-Suen 3/i/ll+[x]: Z[u-bu]-us lii-kin-gi 4 -a Id-a-ab- r ra 1 -at LtJ.[su(.A ld )] (TCL 2
5559:9).

Amar-Suen 5/xii/22: Zu-bu-us lii-kin-gi 4 -a Ia-ab-ra-at lu.su.a^ (AUCT 2 318:8-9).

Amar-Suen 6/ii/4: Zu-bu-us lii-kin-gi 4 -a Ia-ab-ra-at LU.su ki (NBC 9998:4, unpub-
lished, courtesy of M. Sigrist).

Amar-Suen 6/ii/16: Zu-bu-us lii-kin-gi 4 -a Ia-ab-ra-at LU.su ki (Sigrist Ontario 48:1).

Amar-Suen 6/ii/24: Zu-bu-us lii-kin-gi 4 -a Ia-ab-ra-at w.&xs* (Fish Behrens 466:5-6 +
T. Gomi, MVN 12, 114, collations).

[ca. AS 6/ii] : [Z]u-bu-us lii-kin-gi 4 -a Id-ab-ra-atuj.sv (MVN 11 144:2; cited courtesy
of M. Molina, Base de Datos de Textos Sumerios). The date is reconstructed based on
Sigrist Ontario 48.

Amar-Suen 7/ v/21: Ga-da-ad-du ... Zu-bu-us lii-kin-gi 4 -a Id-a-ab-ra-at iXs. su.A^-me
(Ebla 1975-1985, 267 Trout Tablet lines 17-19).

52 See Steinkeller, JAOS 108, 200 n. 27, for a highly tentative identification.

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50

Download Date | 10/7/12 12:12 AM

New Light on Simaski and Its Rulers 231

Amar-Suen 7/vi/12: Du-li-a lii-kin-gi 4 -a Ab-ra-at LU.su ki (Archi/Pomponio Drehem

254:2).
Amar-Suen 7/vi/13: Du-li-a lii-kin-gi 4 -a Ia-ab-ra-at LU.su ki (RA 8 [1911] 191 no.

12:1-2).
Amar-Suen 8/i/18: Da-bu-du-uk lii-kin-gi 4 -a Ia-ab-ra-at lu.su ... G;>-r/lii-kin-gi 4 -a

Da-a-zi{-te) lii An-sa-an^ (BIN 3 477:6-11).
Amar-Suen 8/[i/18]: Da-bu-d[u-uk l]ii-kin-gi 4 -a Id-a[b]-ra-at lu.su^ (MVN 13

636:9'- 10'). The date is reconstructed based on BIN 3 477 (see the preceding entry).
Amar-Suen 8/xii: 2 har kug-babbar 8 gfn(-ta) Pu-su-ud \u-kin-gi 4 -a Ia-ab-ra-at

LU.su.Ak ud LU.su.A^-ta) i-im-gin-na-a in-be 4 ... §ag 4 Nibru ki , "Pusud,

the envoy of Yabrat, the Simaskian, received as his allotment 2 silver rings (weighing)

8 shekels (each) , when he came (from) SimaSki ... in Nippur" (Jean Sumer et Akkad

LXV:57 lines 1-8). Note that, ten years earlier, the same Pusud acted as an envoy of

the SimaSkian Barbanazu: animals e- r muhaldim n [m]u Pii-su-du r lii-kin-gi 4 -a n

Ba-ar-ba\-na-zu lu.su^ (BIN 3 502:23-25 - Sulgi 46/v/27). For Barbanazu (also

known as Barbarazi), see Steinkeller, Camels in Ur III Babylonia? (as note 16).
Amar-Suen 9/ii/26: Ba-ab-du-sa lii-kin-gi 4 -a Ia-ab-ra-at lu.su (Jones-Snyder SET

66:28-29).
Su-Suen 2/xi/24: [B]a-ab-du-sa lii-kin-gi 4 -a [Idl-ab-ra-atLV.sv 16 ... Si-la-ti-ir lu-kin-

gi 4 -a Da-a-zi\(ai)-te lii An-sa-an^ (Babyloniaca 8 pi. VII Pupil 30:2-3).
Su-Suen 2/xii/14: ' B 1 a-ab-du-sa lii- r kin n -gi 4 -a Ia-ab-ra-at LU.su[ ki ] .... Si-la-ti-ir lii -

kin-gi 4 -a Da-a-zi-'te 1 lii An-sa-an ki (Astour AV, 375 Nesbit D lines 2-4).
Su-Suen 3 /iv/12: Ba-'x 1 -[...] ... Ba-a[b-du-sa] lii-kin-gi 4 -a 7fl-[a6]-ra-a?LU.su.A ki -me

... Su-tu-un-gu lii-kin-gi 4 -a Ki-ir-na-mi LU.su.A ki (Sigrist Ontario 149:1-5).
Su-Suen 3/vii/10: Ni-im-zi lii-kin-gi 4 -a Ia-ab-ra-at LU.su.[A ki )] (Sigrist Rochester

86:29-30).
Su-Suen 3/-: (Ba-) ab-du-sa\u-kin-gi 4 -a Ia-ab-ra(-at) k] e-gal-ta gin-na gir Da-a-a

lu-kin-gi 4 -a lugal (Santag 6 262:2-3 - Umma; cited courtesy of P. Michalowski).
(Su-Suen 3): (Ba-} ab-du-sa lii-kin-gi 4 -a Id-ab-ra-[(at k ')] e(-gal)-ta gin-na-as

gir Da-a-a [8iHu]kul ra-gaba? (JCS 57 [2005] 28-29 no. 8:9-12 - Umma). The

date and the text are restored after Santag 6 262 (see the preceding entry).
Su-Suen 4/vi: NNs lu-kin-gi 4 -a ({ad}) Ia-ab-ra-at-me-ei ((me)) (Lafont/Yildiz

Tello Istanbul 2756:8-9 - Girsu/Lagas).
Su-Suen 5/i: Ni-im-zi (erased line) lu-kin-gi 4 -a Ia-ab-ra-at^' 1 LU.su ki -me (Sigrist

Princeton 22 vi 4'-8' [forthcoming]; cited courtesy of M. Molina).
Su-Suen 5/iii: Zu-ur-zu-iir lii-kin-gi 4 -a Ia-ab-ra-at (T. Ozaki and M. Sigrist, Ur III

Administrative Tablets from the British Museum 1 [Madrid 2006] no. 853:13-14 -

Umma).
Su-Suen 5/vi: NN lii Ia-ab-ra-at ... NN lii An-sa-na ki (Istanbul 2889:4-8 - Umma;

cited courtesy of M. Molina, Base de Datos de Textos Sumerios).
Su-Suen 6/ii/6: Ia-a-da-az lii -kin -gi 4 - a Ki-ir-na-me ... Zu-ur-zu-ra lii -kin -gi 4 -a Ia-
ab-ra-at LU.su ki - m e - e s (Jacobsen Copenhagen 7:6- 10).
Su-Suen 6/iii: Zii-ur-zu-ur lii-kin-gi 4 -a Id-a-ba-ra-at (MVN 16 707:9-11 - Umma).
Su-Suen 6/v: NN lii-kin-gi 4 -a Id-a-ba-ra-at (Milone and Spada UMTBM 2 = Nisaba

3, 73 no. 105:11 - Umma; cited courtesy of M. Molina).
Su-Suen 6/?/20: Ni-im-zi lii Ia-ab-ra-at^ 1 lii-iis-sa-ni, "his followers" (Buccellati

Amorites pis. XI-XII 22 iii 8-9 - Girsu/LagaS?).
(Su-Suen 6/7/20): [Ni]-im-zi lii Id-[ab]-ra-'at lki [7 l]ii-iis-sa-ni (JCS 7 [1953]

106-07 Kenrick 72 iv 1-2 - Girsu/LagaS?).

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50

Download Date | 10/7/12 12:12 AM

232 Piotr Steinkeller

Su-Suen 8/i-xii: Elam Ia-ab-ra-at ki -me (Virolleaud TEL 46 i 2 - Girsu/Lagas?).
Su-Suen 8/xii: Elamites of Ia-ab-ra-at ki (ITT 5 9667, transliteration only - Girsu/LagaS).
Year unknown: Ba-ab-du-sa lu-kin-gi 4 -a Id-ab-ra-atLU.su (Gelb, Studi Delia Vida 1,

384 n. 1 Schrijver no. 42 rev. 1).
Year unknown, month vi: NN lu-kin-gi 4 -a dumu 'AbV-ra-at ... NN lu-kin-gi 4 -a

Da-at-zi-at-a-ka (Lafont/Yildiz Tello Istanbul 4259:5-9 - Girsu/Laga§).

Brought to you by | Glasgow University Library

Authenticated | 130.209.6.50

Download Date | 10/7/12 12:12 AM